A competency mechanism.

Abstract

A critical review is offered of the dominant “competency mechanisms” recommended by the “psy” professions for professional development and public assurance. Although the New Zealand Association of Counsellors has voted against registration under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (2003), it has advanced “competency mechanisms” similar to those developed by some of the registered professions. These mechanisms are a form of “panopticism,” which has been subject to severe criticism by Foucault and other scholars. A review of the evidence shows that neither licensing nor panopticonian self-examination protects the public as intended. An alternative mechanism of routine outcome monitoring is therefore suggested that makes practitioners more directly accountable to their clients, rather than to a third party. This not only positions counselling more favourably, both economically and politically, but also resonates better with the emerging 4E cognition paradigm, which promises to be ecologically more sound. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of New Zealand Journal of Counselling is the property of New Zealand Association of Counsellors and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)